Read app settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not: it declares the tool is 'free' (no credit cost) — non-obvious against a sibling set full of credit-consuming tools — and names the exact settings fields returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence and the 'free' suffix pull their weight, but the middle clause listing three concrete settings ('LANGUAGE Hermoso writes ads, copy and answers in, the app appearance (theme), and whether the weekly competitor-watch email is on') is longer than the tool needs to differentiate itself and could be tightened to a single parenthetical. Not wasteful, but not maximally front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 0-param read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, scope, the write-sibling relationship, and the novel 'free' cost caveat. The only missing piece is an explicit pointer to update_settings as the mutation path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description gives no param syntax because none is needed; the schema is an empty object with no description required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read this account's app settings') and then enumerates exactly what settings are returned: LANGUAGE, app appearance/theme, and competitor-watch email state. The companion update_settings sibling is implicitly distinguished as the writer counterpart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Frames the tool as the read side of a read/write pair with update_settings and clarifies scope by equating it with 'the web app's Settings pane'. It does not, however, state when an agent should prefer this over list_connectors or other account-introspection tools, though the resource here is narrow enough that ambiguity is low.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.